The structure and function of organization

[J. Feibleman](https://snaccooperative.org/view/55108212) and [J. W. Friend](https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/washingtonpost/name/julius-friend-obituary?id=1978493), 'The structure and function of organization', _Philosophical Review_, vol. 54 (1945), pp. 19-44. https://doi.org/10.2307/2181585 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2181585 Snippets of text (from the beginning, maybe the middle, and the end) appear below, to give a sense of the content for the chapter. For more depth, the original source is cited, above. ---

In this essay we propose to set forth the structure and the function which are common to all empirical organizations, to serve as an instrument for the investigation of empirical organizations at every level. * The aim of such a canon is to show not only the purposive functions of organizations, but primarily the composition which makes possible the fulfillment of such functions. * We are therefore concerned first with static analysis. * Then it will be seen how an understanding of the analysis of organization promotes a better comprehension of the interactions of organizations as wholes. [p. 30, editoral paragraphing added]

The study of organization, then, must be approached from two standpoints - that of statics and that of dynamics. * Statics treats of organizations as independent of their environment and therefore as isolated from problems of interaction with other organizations. * Dynamics treats of organizations as dependent to some extent upon their environment and therefore as interactive with other organizations. The division of the topic into statics and dynamics is of course not absolute. Actually, no organization is ever completely static or dynamic; all have structure and all suffer functional change. But statics and dynamics are logical and abstract divisions in terms of which the nature of organization can be determined. We cannot hope to understand the dynamics of organization without some prior understanding of statics. [p. 30, editoral paragraphing added]

### Elements of relations [....] The elements of relations which exist between parts of an organization form a certain group of relations, listed as follows:

There may be other relations between parts in any concrete organization - an indefinite number of others, in fact. But such relations do not bear on the question of organization _qua_ organization. The relations listed above are the determinate ones for organization, those into which the relations of parts of an organization may be analysed without remainder. [....] [pp. 31-32]

### Rules of organization [....] ... we need certain rules in terms of which parts and their relations are constitutive of organizations. We shall list these rules and then discuss them. They are: * 1\. Structure is the sharing of subparts between parts. * 2\. Organization is the one controlling order of structure. * 3\. One more level is needed to constitute an organization than is contained in its parts and subparts. * 4\. In every organization there must be a serial relation. * 5\. All parts are shared parts. * 6\. Things in an organization which are related to parts of the organization are themselves parts of the organization. * 7\. Things in an organization which are related to related parts of the organization are themselves parts of the organization. * 8\. The number of parts and of their relations constitutes complexity. [p. 34] [....]

## II. Dynamics In this section we shall approach the theory of organization from the dynamic standpoint. It will entail the consideration of organization no longer isolated from other organizations which go to constitute the environmental world of interaction. * Here the abstract organization which we examined under Statics is further examined as it operates and is operated upon, i.e. functions with, things outside itself. * The effect within upon parts (the strains) will be examined as it is occasioned from without by the interaction of wholes (the stresses). * Or, conversely, the effect upon wholes (the stresses) will be examined as it is occasioned by the interaction of parts (the strains). Viewed either way, what is being considered is function. [p. 39, editoral paragraphing added]

### Elements of interaction The field of dynamics has to do primarily with certain conditions which prevail in the world of action and reaction. These may be described under the following terms: * 1\. Organization-Environment * 2\. Action-Reaction * 3\. Availability-Virtual indifference * 4\. Equilibrium-Disequilibrium * 5\. Saturation-Insufficiency-Superfluity * 6\. Flexibility-Rigidity * 7\. Stabiliiy-Instability [p. 39] [....]

### Rules of interaction We now have the elements of interaction, but by themselves they are not adequate for dynamical analysis, and we need in addition rules to show how the elements function. These rules are: * 1\. Every organization elects some other organization or organizations. * 2\. In every action there is a sharing and an interchange. * 3\. All action is occasioned by the available environment. * 4\. Available environment is limited by interaction with organization. * 5\. All organizations strive toward equilibrium. * 6\. Saturated organizations remain unchanged. * 7\. Insufficient and superfluous organizations tend to change. * 8\. Flexibility is a condition of growth. * 9\. Rigidity is a condition of maintenance. [p. 42] [....]

### Kinds of interaction Having set forth the elements and the rules of interaction, we may now set forth the kinds of interaction in an attempt to show how the dynamic sequence of stimulus-response-effect operates in the relations between organization and environment. Stimuli from the environment are either negligible, effective, or destructive. * A negligible stimulus is one which is so slight that it provokes no organizational response. * The negligible stimulus is a sub-threshold affair. [p. 44, editoral paragraphing added] [....]

An effective stimulus is one which is strong enough to provoke an organizational response, but not too strong. * It not only differs in degree from the negligible and destructive but it also differs in kind because it brings about a specific response which they cannot. [....]

Effective stimuli are divided into minimal, optimal, and drastic. [p. 45 editoral paragraphing added]

## III. The Direction of Structure and Function [....] In this section we hope to show these interrelations by setting forth how function serves as the aim or end of structure. [p. 47] [....]

### Relation of statics to dynamics In order to relate statics to dynamics, it will be necessary to show the relations between rules and kinds of organization on the one hand and rules and kinds of interaction on the other. * It might be expected that we should also be able to relate the elements of relations with the elements of interaction. * But of course it does not follow that because items combine in a related way that items themselves resemble each other. * The parts of a structure do not necessarily resemble the different ways in which the structure functions. The atoms of the water molecule in no wise resemble the uses to which water can be put. Let us then pass on to the comparison of (α) rules and (β) kinds. [p. 48, editorial paragraphing added]

* (α) _Static rule 1_: Structure is the sharing of subparts between parts. * _Dynamic rule 2_: In every action there is a sharing and an interchange. [....]

* _Static rule 2_: Organization is the one controlling order of structure. * _Dynamic rule 1_: Every organization elects some other organization or organizations. [p. 48, editorial paragraphing added] [....]

* _Static rule 3_: One more level is needed to constitute an organization than is contained in its parts and subparts. * _Dynamic rule 4_: Available environment is limited by interaction with organization. [p. 48-49, editorial paragraphing added] [....]

* _Static rule 4_: In every organization there must be a serial relation. * _Dynamic rule 5_: All organizations strive toward equilibrium. [....]

* _Static rule 5_: All parts are shared parts. * _Dynamic rule 6_: Saturated organizations remain unchanged. [....]

* _Static rule 6_: Things in an organization which are related to parts of the organization are themselves parts of the organization. * _Dynamic rule 3_: All action is occasioned by the available environment. [p. 49, editorial paragraphing added] [....]

* _Static rule 7_: Things in an organization which are related to related parts of the organization are themselves parts of the organization. * _Dynamic rules 7, 8_: Insufficient and superfluous organizations tend to change. Flexibility is a condition of growth. [....]

* _Static rule 8_: The number of parts and of their relations constitutes complexity. * _Dynamic rule 9_: Rigidity is a condition of maintenance. [p. 50, editorial paragraphing added] [....]

(β) _Kinds_. Kinds of organization and kinds of interaction are not to be simply correlated, since each one has to do with a different dimension of organization, and whole organizations must include both dimensions. Taken from the point of view of complexity, * the adjunctive kind of organization, where the sharing of subparts is not necessary to either of the parts, * is less complex than the subjective, where the sharing of parts is necessary to one of the parts but not both, and * these two types are still less complex than the complemental, where the sharing of the parts is necessary to both of the parts. Similarly, * tenacious responses are less complex than elastic responses, and * both are less complex than self-determinative responses. Taken from the point of view of integrality, the reverse proves to be the case -- * the adjunctive kind of organization is the least integral, * the subjective more integral than the adjunctive but less integral than the complemental. In the case of the responses of the organization, however, * it is the tenacious which is the most integral, * the elastic which is less integral, and the self-determinative which is still less integral. [....]

It will now be clear how the criteria of organization, complexity and integrality, relate the kinds of organization with the kinds of interaction. [p. 50, editoral paragraphing added]

### The perfect organization ... it may be instructive to sketch the conditions with which a perfect organization would have to comply. Of course no such perfect organization has ever existed nor presumably can exist. But the theoretical plan of such an organization serves a very useful purpose in studying the direction of actual organizations. We can see the difficulties in the path of organization only when we know what the ideal of organization is. [p. 51-52, editoral paragraphing added] [....]

... the environment in which every organization is involved will never let the organization altogether alone. It constantly stimulates and excites it by impinging upon it in more or less degree. * This available environment forces the organization to make changes or perish. * It is the interaction between the conservative tendency and external disturbances which causes various changes in the organization -- changes taking several directions. These directions may be termed the three dodges of the organization to escape destruction. * There is of course a fourth possible result which consists in the utter destruction of the organization, but that requires no further description. [p. 32, editoral paragraphing added]

The three dodges of the organization to survive are * by tenacity, * by elasticity, and * by self-determination. Of course, the choice of these three dodges depends upon the structure of the organization itself. * If the organization is too highly integrated for what it integrates, then it would tend to choose the path of tenacity. * If, on the other hand, it is so complex that it has difficulties integrating what it contains, then it would tend to choose the path of self-determination. By choosing what it needs from the environment and so increasing its complexity in order to obtain better integration, it chooses the path of self-determination, a never-ending process. * Between these two extremes lies elasticity, the compromise between integrality and complexity. Elasticity is not so integral that it cannot increase its complexity and not so complex that it cannot hold onto its integrality. [p. 32, editoral paragraphing added] [....]

We hope to have established a canon for the structure and function of organization abstracted from any and every empirical field and science. It will remain for further research to apply this canon to the empirical fields which the sciences study, and to the abstract sciences themselves. [p. 55]